Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)

[dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov)]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message news:<m34qx2zfed.fsf@insalien.org>...
> dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) writes:
> 
> <long rant/>
> 
> According to COGEMA, the French agency for nuclear fuel and waste, a
> nuclear plant uses fuel that consists, for 100 kg of fuel, of:
> 
> 93 kg non-radioactive Uranium 238

Will not trust someone who saying that u-238 is not radioactive.Not
very radioactive.It's principial because it used as mass(instead of
lead) in non-nuclear weapons.Actually,i think that lead is toxic too.

>  7 kg radioactive Uranium 235
> 
> After 4 years, part of the fuel load is replaced in each reactor.  For
> 100 kg of fuel, the outcome is this:
> 
> 93 kg non-radioactive Uranium 238
>  1 kg radioactive Uranium 235
>  1 kg radioactive Plutonium 239
>  3 kg other wastes
> 
> 2 kg are missing: they've been turned into energy (e=mc2).
> 
> The only question is: what do we do with the 1 kg of plutonium and 3
> kg of other wastes?  First, the various wastes are sorted according to
> their half-life.  The half-life is the time it takes for half of the
> material to degrade (through nuclear fission) into other products.
> The longer the half-life, the bigger the problem.

Not so simple.
1:The bigger half-life,the lower radioactivity.
2:After emission of something, nuclei could become other radioactive
element.
(for example If we have some pure u-238,it's initially not as
radioactive as in nature,but radioactivity INCREASES with time,for
many years).

There's no single half-life for other wastes.It's takes looong time to
rearch level of initial 100 kg.Throusands of years even without
plutonium.

>  Wastes with a short
> half-life (milliseconds, seconds, even a few days or months) are not a
> big problem and can be treated on-site.  Now plutonium is a different
> matter, because its half-life is 26 thousand years.

even 100 years is also big enought to make "other wastes" a
problem.Price of mantaining pool with wastes for 100 years+price of
rectifying that waste +price of mantaining part of that waste...
Nuclair plants now as cheap as other power plants.Without storage
price.
They are as cheap as now claiming _only_ if we will simply spread
wastes.

> 
> - it is possible to reuse the plutonium, mixed with uranium, in some
>   existing power plants to produce energy.  Thus, we do not produce
>   ever more plutonium but "burn" it as we go.  At the very least, this
>   reduces the net amount of plutonium produced.  For example, France
>   burns plutonium in 900 MW reactors, but not in 1300 MW reactors.
> 
> - it is possible to store it and wait for 26 thousand years until half
>   the plutonium has turned into other (possibly radioactive) elements.
> 
> - it is possible to use it in nuclear weapons.  This is akin to
>   storage, until (God forbid) such time as the weapons are used.

Really,all "other wastes" many times more radioactive(at least 3
times) than result of using that bombs.Why you so worry about nuclear
war and don't  worry about that waste?

> 
> My opinion is this: we should not trust our children for 26 thousand
> years (by which time only half the problem will be solved anyway).  We
> cannot even trust ourselves for a couple of decades without going to
> war or doing something stupid.

For couple of decades,or hungreds of years,plutonium IS NOT a biggest
problem anyway,other wastes is a problem,and there's nothing to do
with it!
Only after several throusands of years plutonium becomes biggest
problem,and remains big problem for long time.

>  We must treat this plutonium and turn
> it into something harmless.  It is not an urgent problem for now, but
> will become one around 2040 when most of the existing reactors reach
> their end of life (the existing reactors with their infrastructure are
> absolutely required for treatment of nuclear waste; nobody would
> accept building a treatment plant where nothing "nuclear" exists yet).


3kg "other wastes"...hmm..
when Chernobil exploded,almost all radioactivity was from that
so-called "other wastes"
You can assemble fuel yourself without any problems and too much dose.
You can build plutonium bomb without any dose(plutonium emmits only
alfa-particles).
And once you are near to "old used fuel",you will expose lethal dose
quite fast.


We will have at least many small nuclear wars in future,surely.And
that because of this f@#$^ power plants used in many unstable
countries!

First time military nuclear power plant was claimed as civil in
USSR.And after it,all newly build military plants was called civil
anywhere.At least in USSR,there's no really civil plants,plutonium
from all plants could be used in bombs,and that was initial project.
Everyone like to name military things civil,big countries forbid small
country to build military plants.But they can build "civil" plants.

Some part waste always spreaded.We can't do something with that waste
now and probably for many hungreds of years we will not become able to
do something.
As our great scientist Sacharov(he researched russian H-bomb
independently) said,if we will spread some radioactivity as result of
test of bombs on all earth,small precent but many peoples will die in
next hungreds of years due to slighty increased probablity of
cancer.Throusands of peoples per bomb.Plutonium bomb produces 6kg or
less of wastes. It's quite inpossible to mantain our plants so
carefully that  there's no leaks.